AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



A NEGLECTED POINT OF VIEW IN AMERICAN 
COLONIAL HISTORY: 



THE COLONII5S A8 DEPENDENCIES OF 
GREAT BRITAIN. 



WILLIAM MaoDONALD, 

PROFKSSOK OF HISTORY IN BROWN UNIVERSITY. 



(From the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1902, 
Vol, I, pages 1G9-178.) 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
19 03. 



AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



A NEGLECTED POINT OF VIEW IN^ AMERICAN 
COLONIAL inSTOIiV: 



THE C<)JX)XIES AS DEPENDEIS^CIES OF 
GREAT BRTTAIX. 



WILLIA.^I MacDOXALD. 

PROFESSOR OF HISTORY I.V BRoWX UNIVERSITY. 



(From the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1902, 
Vol. I, pages 169-178.) 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
1903. 



' A^^ 



^ 



v.- A NE(iLECTEl) POINT (IF VIEW IN a:\IERICAN COLON lAE 

HISTORY: THE COLONIES AS DEPENDENCIES 

OP GREAT P.RITA IN. 



By William MacDonald, 

J'rofcfSdr <i/ Il/xlori/ in Briiwii, riui'crsili/. 



im 



A NEGLECTED POINT OF VIEW IN AMERICAN COLONIAL HISTORY: 
THE COLONIES AS DEPENDENCIES OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



By William MacDonald. 



I snp[)ose that one of the most iiuporttint things in histori- 
cal stud}' is the determination of the point of view. Unless 
one is content to l)e merel^y an annalist, setting down in chrono- 
logical order such facts as he ma}' choose to deal with, the 
standpoint, conscious or unconscious, of the student or writer 
is pretty certain to influence in considerable measure not oidy 
his interpretation of the meaning of events, but also his per- 
ception and selection of events themselves. If the ransacking 
of the records of the past for partisan or controversial pur- 
poses no longer passes muster as history; if impartiality and 
comprehensiveness are now generally insisted upon alike in 
teacher and taught, it still remains true that history, in the 
sense of an orderly presentation of the past as nearly as pos- 
sible as that past actually was, is likely to be influenced very 
much by the way in which the inquirer looks at the field he is 
studying, the point from which he surveys it. 

It is a not unfounded complaint against the treatment of 
American colonial history that it has been, too often, local 
and antiquarian rather than broadly or genuinely historical. 
The activity of scholars in this field has, to be sure, been 
something prodigious. The publication of historical mate- 
rial, particularly in regard to the history of the English colo- 
nies, has gone on at a portentous rate, while the stream of 
monographs, good, bad, and indifi'erent, is constantly widen- 
ing. Merely to keep decently well informed of what others 
are doing is in itself a heavy drain on the time of the student 
who is so unfortunate as to have any other duties in life. 

171 



172 AMERICAN HlSTUllICAL ASSOCIATION. 

P'ui'thor, and as a natural result of zealous devotion to an 
attractive subject, we are coming- to have a considerable vol- 
ume of specialized treatment of the colonial period. We have 
studies of colonial government, of colonial slavery, of colonial 
tariffs, of colonial currenc}^, of taxation and suffrage in colo- 
nial times. There are even intimations that other colonies 
besides Massachusetts had religious interests possibly worth 
attending- to. Not many subdivisions of the field but have 
been somewhat dug into by those who, from choice or neces- 
sity, have set to work to write something about American 
colonial history. 

What is true of the student and writer is true also, if not 
in so marked a degree, of the teacher. If my observation of 
the teaching of early American history in the better class of 
colleges and universities is correct, the teaching of the sub- 
ject has grown immensel}' in content in the last ten or fifteen 
years. Voluminous as is the output of printed material, that 
material itself is increasingly used in the lecture room as well 
as the seminary. "Original research'' is no longer mei'ely a 
term to conjure with, ])ut an instrument whose acquaintance 
is made by the student at a very early stage of his career. 
The feeling that American histor}" is an " easy " subject is not, 
I think, quite so widespread as it once was. I doubt, indeed, 
if the subject is yet thought of by scholars in other depart- 
ments as quite the equal in intellectual importance and dignity 
of most periods of European history, but this feeling, too, is, 
I think, noticea])ly giving place to a juster a])preciation of 
what the stud}" of American histor}" realh" means. 

What I want to do at this time, however, is not to pass any 
sweeping criticism on the study or teaching of American his- 
tory in general or American colonial history in particular, but 
to call attention briefly to a point of view which, as it seems to 
me, has been quite too much and too long neglected. Not- 
withstanding the great activity in publication — perhaps, indeed, 
somewhat in consequence of it — American colonial history 
still has clinging to it a vast mass of localism and antiquari- 
anism, burdening the subject with minute data of the slight- 
est general interest, and obscuring if not obliterating the 
]>roader outlines of motive, influence, and development, the 
perception of whose significance can alone make the subject 



AMERICAN COLONIAL HISTORY. 173 

historically interesting. The history of the colonies is too 
often treated, down to the time of the stamp act, substan- 
tially as Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge treats it in his ""Short His- 
tory" — two chapters to each colony, one on the course of 
events, one on social characteristics at the end of the period. 
That the colonies had anything in common before 1705; that 
the}" were an3"thing but absolutely independent communities 
shot into the continent in 1(U)(), 1620. 1668, and so on, and left 
to themselves until England discovered them about the time 
of the Seven Years' ^\^ar, are matters which too often quite 
fail to appear. The suddenness with which the pre-Revolu- 
tionary agitation is made to Hash upon the canvas, after a long 
and dreary period of colonial beginnings and petty happen- 
ings, and the lack of apparent preparation for the stirring- 
events which follow each other in such rapid succession until 
the outbreak of war, are startling and disturliing to the 
student who has been taught to look for causes in history, 
or who has learned that in other periods or countries events 
do, on the whole, follow each other in somewhat of orderly 
succession. Very naturall}^ therefore, the colonial period, 
save where it is picturesque, is declared uninteresting, suit- 
able for those investigators only whose equipment for histor- 
ical research consists principally in a fair reading knowledge 
of English. 

What wjb have, as it seems to me, been too much inclined 
to ignore is the fact that the American colonies were (uilonie^. 
They were not independent States, Imt colonial dependencies 
of Great Britain, The}' were not neglected settlements in a 
remote New World, but valued and highly regarded parts of 
the British Enipire. \\\ isolating them from connection with 
the mother country, and centering attention primarily on the 
events which transpired on this side of the Atlantic, we lose 
sight of the all-important fact that the history of the colonies 
was largely determined by the attitude of England toward 
them, and that there was being worked out in this country, 
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, one of the most 
interesting colonial policies of modern times. My plea, in 
other words, is for the study of American colonial histor}^ 
primaril}^ as the histor}", in this part of the world, of English 
colonial polic}'. 



174 AMERICAN HrSTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 

"I haA^e been iiioreii.sinoly .surprised at the siimll amount of 
attention that has been g-iven to this phase of the suhjert. 
The larger o-eneral histories, for the most part, make Init 
ineidental or oceasional reference to the colonial system of 
England, or to the connection between Eno-lish history and 
American history in colonial times. One Avould read widely 
in the l)etter known books without discovering- man}^ points 
of contact between the colonial administration and the Eng- 
lish administration. Such subjects as the influence of the 
charter on the form of government, the powers and duties of 
the governor, or the functions of the colonial agent are in 
general little referred to. The charter granted a tract of 
land with uncertain boundaries; the governor, as the repre- 
sentative of ar])itrary power, w^as more or less of the time in 
hot water with the assem])ly; and the colonial agent, appear- 
ing from no one knows where about the time of the stamp 
act, was the medium for unpleasant communications l)etween 
the colony and the ministr3\ As for the navigation acts, a 
brief summary of the provisions of a few of them — usually, 
be it said, betraying the fact that the writer himself has not 
read the acts — accompanied l)y the easy remark that the 
acts were generally disregarded, is as nnich as can be gleaned 
of this large and difficult sul)iect from most general narra- 
tives. Only in the pages of a few monographs do we as 3'et 
find scholarly recognition of the colony status as a cardinal 
fact in American colonial history. 

Besides the obvioiis advantage of giving greater unity of 
interest to afield in which there has long been undue diversity^ 
the adoption of English colonial policy as the point of view 
for the treatment of the earlier American period Avould have 
other advantages which it seems to me would be worth while 
to secure. 

In the first place, it would rid American history of the 
provincialism which has so generally ignored all the English 
colonies in America save the thirteen that succeeded in mak- 
ing good their independence. The fact of the case, I take it, 
is that down to the time when resistance to the British Gov- 
ernment brought certain of the continental colonies into 
special prominence, it was not the continental colonies, but 
the sugar colonies of the West Indies, that were in the eyes 



AMERICAN COLONIAL HISTORY. 175 

of Great Britain the iiio.st important. The trade of the .sugar 
colonies was of far more eonse([uence. relatively speaking, 
than that of the colx)nies on the mainland, and it was the com- 
mercial aspect of American colonization that was most 
important in the view of Englishmen during the eighteenth 
century. It can hardly be necessary to do more than to point 
out how completely the West Indian colonies have disap- 
peared froui view in the customary treatment of American 
history. Because thirteen of the continental colonies formed 
the United States of America, we have somehow forgotten 
that the same acts of which the revolting colonies complained 
were, for the most part, accepted without nuich complaint by 
a considerable numl)er of other colonies actually of more con- 
secpience at the moment in the view of England. 1 am 
inclined to think that the Revolution, to cite no other illustra- 
tion, acquires a new signiticance when we consider that the 
colonies which rebelled were, as a whole, not the ones most 
vitalh' affected by the earlier obnoxious acts of Parliauient 
and King. 

In the second place, the adoption of the colonial point of 
view sets a new value on the documentar}' liases of colonial 
development. The charters of the colonies come to be viewed 
not as mer(^ articles of incorporation or patents of privilege, 
but as the legiil foundations of colonial life, as colonial con- 
stitutions of fundamental signiticance. We shall resurrect 
the colonial governor and study his instructions — now almost 
totalh" neglected — and his correspondence. We shall set to 
w^ork on the vast mass of papers that contain the records of 
the lords of trade, the pri\'y council, and the other boards 
and officials which from time to time had a share in the man- 
agement of American affairs. We shall study the long series 
of acts of Parliament relating to America, available for any 
on-3 in the volumes of the English Statutes at Large, but little 
read, I fear, by students. A considerable portion of this 
material, I am aware, still remains in manuscript, but I am 
constantly surprised at the small use made of the consideral)le 
portion available in print or transcript. A great field of docu- 
mentary material, of the closest relation to the foundations of 
American society, still remains practically untouched. There 
is no better corrective for historical provincialism than the 



176 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

study of charters, statutes, and olHeial doeuinents from tlie 
standpoints alike of the persons who ci'eated them and of 
those for whom tiiev were made. 

Certain spi^cial topics which have received considerable 
iittention in recent years gain nuicii in sio-niticance when 
viewed consistently, not as isolated occurrences in this colon}' 
or that, but as illusti-ations of the colonial policy of the mother 
country. Thei'c is, for example, no true appreciation of the 
nature or development of colonial shuery without constant 
attention to the })rimarv ao'ency of Knoland in forcino- the 
institution upon the American colonies. The lono- list of 
restrictive acts of assembly to which royal assent was refused 
is of itself sufHcient to dissipate mor(> than one of the hi^'h- 
soundinu' generalizations which ha\'e obscured this ditficult 
)>ut fascinating subject. 1 need not dwell ])articularly on the 
industrial and commercial developmc^it of the colonies, since 
t!ie insepara))le connection ]»etween that development and the 
acts of trade and acts relating to colonial manufactui'cs is 
obvious. In all these matters it is the policy of the mother 
country, to be sought in the statutes, the charters, and the 
uid)roken stream of official instructions, that wields the de- 
termining influence. 

I am not without hope, further, that such study as I have 
urged might result I)efore long in turning attention to the 
important subject of American law. In a generation which 
has attacked American history with vigor at almost every 
l^oint, it is strang(» that the history of our law should have 
been so geniM'ally neglected. Perhaps the liasty and superfi- 
cial methods of most of our law schools imist l)ear a part of 
the blame. In the history of our legal institutions is to ])e 
found, I believe, one of the richest fields 3'et awaiting the in- 
vestigator. But oidy the comparative method, based on the 
recognition of the supremac}' of England, wdll reap the harvest. 
That provision of the charters authorizing the making of "" laws 
not repugnant to the laws of Elngland,''' is the startiiig point 
of historical inquiry. How the common law was understood 
and applied, how far English statute law was availed of, the 
modifications introduced by qcts of assemblies, the place of 
the courts in the scheme of colonial government, the influence 
of the judiciar}^ on public opinion — all these are questions on 



AMERICAN" COLONIAL HISTORY. 177 

which wt' imi.st have iiiiich more lig-ht ])cfore the hitstory of 
colonial America can be truly written. And I suspect that it 
will bo found that the political as well as the leo-al institutions 
of the colonies bear many marks, as yet only darkly discerned, 
of the molding- influence of English administration and law. 

I need do no more than refer, in passing, to the advantage 
which is to be found, in teaching the historv of the colonial 
period, in laying events in America alongside of events in 
England and observing the connection. No writer, as it 
seems to me, has yet sufficiently shown how nmch essential 
correspondence there is between the two. From the estab- 
lishment of Virginia in 1606 to the Declaration of Independ- 
ence one hundred and seventy years later, there is hardly 
any important political movement in England that is not with 
more or less clearness reflected in America. The rise and 
decline of Puritanism, the civil war and the Cromwellian 
regime, the Restoration, the revolution of 1688, and the long 
series of wars down to the peace of Paris in 1763, all exercised 
distinct influence on the course of colonial affairs. T am 
aware that such comparative treatment is, happily, not 
uncommon, but I can but think that it is as yet not half 
common enough. There is no need to distort events, to as- 
sume meanings and correspondences where there are none, or 
to ignore what is unique or characteristic in the colonies 
themselves. All that is urged is due attention to such paral- 
lelisms as are unmistakable. 

Finally, it seems to me that a clearer recognition of the 
colonial status as the primary fact in American history down 
to 1776 means a gain, not alone in truth and continuitv, but 
also in dignity and proportion. So long as we treat American 
history essentially as a thing apart, as a subject which not 
only can be isolated but ought to be isolated, we not only tend 
to lose sight of such connection with other history as there is, 
but we tend also to emphasize the wrong things and urge the 
study of the subject on insufficient grounds. What is needed, 
1 think, is to bring American history into closer connection 
with other history, to show more fully wherein we have been 
affected by what has gone on in other parts of the world. No 
nation, J suppose, has ever cared less about history or shown 
less disposition to profit by the experience of others than our 

H. Doc. 161, pt 1 12 



178 AMERICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 

own; l)ut that is no reason win" the facts of our origin und our 
large indcl)tcdn('S8 to others for ideas should not he exhib- 
ited as the,y were. Now that we are ourselves enil)arked on 
some perilous colonial experiments there Avould seem to l)e 
additional reason for examining the w^a}' in which avc were 
dealt with Avhen Ave ourselves were only colonies. There is, 
I think, the possi))ility of large fruitfiUness in such an in- 
quiry. But I do not urge this neglected point of view merely 
because it is interesting or pertinent, l)ut rather ])ecause it 
seems to me to l)e the point from which we can best under- 
stand our past, best see American colonial history in its rela- 
tions, l)est explain the origin and early growth of what we 
have ourselves become. 



